Sonya Betz, Robyn Hall, MacEwan U., Canada
Microinteractions, macro results
Institutional repositories (have been called a”roach motels”): wanted to make a site faculty would be proud to use.
User testing = observation. Not about asking for opinions. Lets you observe problems.
* Representative users
* Representative tasks
* Observe what they do and where they have problems
* Revise and re-test
Microinteraction: a tiny piece of functionality.
Feedback to user: labels, error messages, etc.
Tested faculty on uploading documents to the repository.
Wanted to click on big “share” at bottom, so made that a link.
Nobody read “about” page or FAQ.
Nobody clicks on “Let us help,” because it sounds burdensome. Changed to “Let us do it.”
“Citation information” caused some confusion. They wondered what style to user, so changed to “Publication information.”
People wanted link to contribute another work. Also wanted link on their own names (“the academic ego”)
Getting ideas from ResearchGate and Dropbox.
Can make the difference between products we love and those we tolerate.
Weeding a website
Tabatha Farney, U. of Colorado
De-selecting “zombie content.”
New content management system led to more people creating more content. Library web site up to 300 pages.
Politics: people get nervous about weeding.
1. Identify low use pages with web analytics.
2. Get user feedback on those pages.
3. Decide what to weed.
Also looked at “bounce rate” (short time on page, no click on anything), last time it was viewed, last modified date.
Tried to put comment form of pages flagged for weeding. Flaw: already low use.
Met with content creators individually to understand why these pages exist.
Reasons like: it’s always been there, it makes the administrators happy, because some user may need it someday.
Consolidate pages like policies, staff directories, how-to info.
Working on a content strategy.
Marketing to web site users.
Archiving unused content. (Some are uncomfortable about deleting pages just yet.)